One pool is doing 1.55x daily turnover; most of the rest barely trade.
The read on Raydium CLMM this week
We scored 12 Raydium concentrated pools totaling $211.01M in TVL. They moved $11.90M over the last 24 hours, with an average fee APR of 2.1%. The distribution isn’t even. It’s lopsided.
One pair explains why you still check Raydium CLMM every morning: SOL-USDC carries $4.84M in TVL and printed $7.51M in 24h volume. That’s 1.55x turnover and a 22.6% fee APR on our read, with a 100/100 farmer score. By contrast, several pools with 8–40x more capital barely ticked a trade.
- OSRUB-USDT: $36.98M TVL vs $33K volume; fee APR 0.0%; farmer score 1/100.
- USDS-USDC: $32.87M TVL vs $969K volume; fee APR 0.1%; farmer score 3/100.
- GFT-USD1: $19.27M TVL vs $11K volume; fee APR 0.9%; farmer score 4/100.
- USDC-TRX: $11.89M TVL vs $777K volume; fee APR 1.2%; farmer score 71/100.
- USD1-USDC: $9.99M TVL vs $1.67M volume; fee APR 0.6%; farmer score 36/100.
My view (and I’m happy to be proven wrong next week): Raydium CLMM is a one-pool venue right now. You’re either playing majors that aggregate real flow, or you’re providing an expensive public good.
Fees don’t follow TVL. They follow routes, spread, and how tightly you sit near mid.
The standout: SOL-USDC on Raydium CLMM
SOL-USDC is the outlier for a reason:
- Routing share: When Jupiter and internal routers include Raydium CLMM near best execution, majors surge. That’s visible in 1.55x daily turnover here versus sub-0.2x elsewhere. CLMMs earn when you own the bands where trading actually happens.
- Spread and slippage: Traders prefer the path that minimizes price impact after fees. Concentrated liquidity beats constant-product depth if enough LPs stack tight ticks around the mid.
- LP behavior: Active managers hug the mid on majors. That concentrates size where flow hits, juicing fee density. Parking wide ranges on quiet pairs does the opposite.
Compared to Raydium’s legacy pool, SOL-USDC on AMM, the concentrated venue can be the higher earner on busy days because it soaks flow into narrow ranges while charging the same or higher fee tier. It’s the same reason Orca Whirlpools work for majors: concentrated depth near mid wins the route more often. You can see that on SOL-USDC at Orca as well.
Protocol mechanics support this. Raydium’s CLMM implements tick-based ranges and fee tiers, NFT-like positions, and range orders. The short version from the docs: fee income accrues to the liquidity that’s actually inside the active tick at fill time. Sit outside and you’re ornamental. Sit inside and you harvest. See the CLMM primer in Raydium docs for architecture and position behavior.
The problem cases: cold TVL and mispriced stables
On the other side sit the stables and exotics with high balances and thin tape. These are the traps:
- Cold exotics: OSRUB-USDT shows $36.98M in TVL but only $33K in daily volume. That’s a 0.0009x turnover day and a 0.0% fee APR print. It’s parked capital. Unless you’re doing basis trades somewhere else, you’re just subsidizing slippage for the one person who shows up.
- Stable-to-stable without stickiness: USDS-USDC has $32.87M and $969K in 24h volume (0.03x). With a 0.1% fee APR on our cut, it trails even conservative lending profiles. We said this before for stables and it still applies: if fee-only yield doesn’t beat lending, take the hint. For detail, read Where Stablecoin LPs Beat Lending on Solana with Fee-Only Yield.
- Non-canonical stables: USD1-USDC does $1.67M on $9.99M TVL (0.17x) for 0.6% fee APR. Better turnover than the other stables, but you’re taking extra asset risk for a fee profile that still trails majors.
- Token-specific drag: USDC-TRX at $11.89M TVL and $777K volume posts 1.2% fee APR. Not terrible on paper. But the turnover is 0.07x and the fee gradient swings with headlines and bridge flows more than anything you can control.
None of these are inherently bad ideas forever. They’re just bad ideas today on Raydium CLMM if your goal is fee income. The bottleneck isn’t TVL; it’s flow and whether route engines pick your ticks.
CLMM mechanics on Raydium that actually matter
Tick spacing, fee tiers, and active bandwidth
Raydium CLMM uses tick arrays and fee tiers like other v3-style designs. What you control:
- Range width: Narrow ranges near mid collect a higher share of fees per dollar but need babysitting. Wide ranges feel safer but spend long stretches inactive when the price drifts. This week’s data rewards narrow on majors; wide fared poorly on stables.
- Where you center: Bids just below and asks just above mid tend to catch more flow than symmetrical straddles when orderflow is directional. Don’t overfit; keep it simple and move with price.
- Fee tier selection: Raydium pools list specific fee tiers per pair. A higher tier can offset lower turnover, but only if you’re still in the best path after fees. If the router bypasses you, your higher rate becomes a tax on nothing.
- Compounding cadence: Fees accrue inside your NFT position. Compounding daily or on volatility spikes raises your base slightly and keeps your band relevant if you’re using asymmetric ranges.
Routing and competition for flow
Trades hit you if the route prefers you. That’s affected by on-chain price impact, available depth inside your range, and the competing routes across Raydium AMM and other venues. Orca’s Whirlpools and Meteora’s DLMM compete leg by leg. Raydium’s internal tools help, but real share still comes from aggregators. The takeaway: manage ranges where the best path is likely to land, not where the biggest TVL sits.
How it stacks up: Raydium CLMM vs Orca and Raydium AMM
- Versus Orca Whirlpools: On majors, both venues can pay well when ranges are tight and routes include them. We regularly see solid performance on SOL-USDC and even steady, lower-volatility fees on JitoSOL-SOL, which is intentionally boring (that’s a feature). Orca’s docs lay out similar tick mechanics and fee accrual behavior: see Orca docs.
- Versus Raydium AMM: Constant-product depth helps for larger sweeps that don’t want to clip into thin tick bands, but fee density usually runs lower. Compare fee prints on Raydium’s AMM-side SOL-USDC to the CLMM pool; on busy days the concentrated side out-earns because more of the trade executes inside your band.
- Versus Meteora DLMM: DLMM’s moving bins and dynamic fees can shine on memecoins and wild small caps. Raydium CLMM underperforms there this week because the pairs with TVL don’t have matching organic flow. If you’re hunting volatility harvesting, DLMM often captures it more efficiently on tail assets; CLMM on Raydium looks best on majors right now.
Bottom line: pick the venue pair by pair. Don’t generalize “CLMM good” or “AMM bad.” This week’s Raydium data rewards majors; stables and exotics look sleepy.
LP playbooks that actually got paid
- Major, tight, active: For SOL-USDC, run a narrow straddle or simple two-sided band around mid and plan to move it if price drifts more than your half-width. The 22.6% fee APR print happened with 1.55x turnover. You want to be inside that action, not 3% away watching.
- Hedged majors: If you don’t want SOL exposure, delta-hedge with perps or borrow SOL against USDC and rebalance on range shifts. Keep costs in mind; fees need to beat borrow/funding.
- Stable pairs: be selective or skip: Unless you see consistent 0.3x–0.5x turnover (you don’t here), skip or use very narrow bands near mid and accept micromanagement. Compare to lending APY before deploying. The research in this stablecoin LP piece still holds.
- Exotics only with a thesis: If you must touch TRX or non-canonical stables, size small and treat fees as a bonus on a separate trade thesis (basis, bridge, or event). Don’t expect the pool to carry you.
- Rotation discipline: If your band isn’t printing fills for hours while majors are humming, rotate. Don’t anchor to TVL. Use our live Opportunities feed and the Best/Top hub pages to spot where flow is.
What to watch next on Raydium CLMM
- Router share shifts: Any change in aggregator preferences can swing CLMM earnings day to day. A slight edge on price impact can move millions of volume.
- Fee tier changes or new pools: If Raydium spins up new fee tiers on majors or incentives on stables, reevaluate. Some tiers will clear more flow with the same TVL.
- Canonical assets: Pairs like cbBTC-USDC matter when wrapped asset liquidity consolidates. Canonicalization concentrates routes and can wake up a quiet pool quickly.
- Cross-venue pressure: If Orca or Meteora tighten spreads on majors, Raydium CLMM earnings will mirror that competition. Track both and rotate when one venue consistently wins the route.
If you want a quick scan of where capital actually earns on Solana right now, start with our live hubs: Best Solana pools and Top Solana pools by TVL. Use them as a staging ground, then drill into the pair you care about.
FAQ
What is Raydium CLMM and how is it different from the AMM?
Raydium CLMM is a tick-based concentrated liquidity design. You choose a price range; your liquidity only trades inside that band and collects fees proportional to fills in it. The AMM is constant product; your liquidity is spread across the entire curve at all times with lower fee density. CLMM needs more management but can pay better when you sit where trades actually occur. See the architecture overview in the Raydium docs.
Why is SOL-USDC outperforming on Raydium CLMM right now?
It has real routing share and tight, active bands near mid. The result: 1.55x daily turnover and a 22.6% fee APR on our cut. Most other pools this week have high balances but low route share, so their turnover and fee APRs sag.
Are Raydium stablecoin pools worth it this week?
Not on fee income alone. USDS-USDC shows 0.1% fee APR; USD1-USDC shows 0.6%. Those prints trail conservative lending. Unless turnover rises or incentives appear, capital is usually better put to work elsewhere.
How narrow should I set my CLMM range?
Narrow enough to be inside the mid most of the day without constant babysitting. On majors that can mean a tight straddle moved a few times a day; on stables, extremely tight bands can work but require frequent updates. If you leave a wide band and walk away, expect fee dilution.
How does Raydium CLMM compare to Orca Whirlpools?
Mechanically similar: tick ranges, fee tiers, and accrual behavior. Performance is pair- and day-dependent. On majors, both can pay well; on tail assets, Meteora’s DLMM can be more effective. Compare live prints on SOL-USDC at Orca, Raydium AMM’s SOL-USDC, and Raydium CLMM’s SOL-USDC before you deploy.
What signals tell me to rotate off a Raydium CLMM pool?
Low turnover relative to TVL, slipping farmer scores, and seeing your ticks sit inactive for hours while majors print. If your realized fee APR can’t beat safer alternatives, rotate. Our Best Solana pools and Top Solana pools by TVL hubs are fast ways to check where fees are actually landing.
